On December 04, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lupian, Sigifredo,
and
Gold Star Foods, Inc., A Delaware Corporation,
for Other Employment Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
JASON W. KEARNAGHAN, Cal. Bar No. 207707
MELISSA M. SMITH, Cal. Bar No. 279467
ELYSSA M. STERNBERG, Cal. Bar No. 329481 D
UI-PUJN
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor E
SUEELE,‘ EOURT
M
Coum-Y 0; 9A" BERNARDINO
Los Angeles, California 90071—1 422
DISTR|CT
Telephone: 21 3.620. 1 780 SAN BERNAflDINO
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
E mail jkeamaghan@sheppardmullin.com SEP 2 a 2021
melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com .
BY “fl
estemberg@sheppardmullin.com . 71.142"!
mvl u-‘vr. thJHAMos’ DEF; i
I
'
Attorneys for Defendant
ONOOOVON
GOLD STAR FOODS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
‘
.
z
2%
11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT u../
”fin?
12 SIGIFREDO LUPIAN, individually and 0n Case N0. CIVDSl936613
behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Assigned to: Hon. Donald Alvarez €331;
13 Department: $23
Plaintiff,
14 DEFENDANT GOLD STAR FOOD’S
V. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
15 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
GOLD STAR FOODS, INC., a Delaware OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL TO
16 corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
inclusive, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
17
Defendant. [Filed concurrently with Opposition; and
18 Declarations ofElyssa Sternberg and Veronica
Miramontes]
19
wing
20 Date: October 6, 202]
Time: 9:00 a.m.
21 Dept; $23
22 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2019
Trial Date: None Set
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
SMRH34823-9353-2156-1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HIS
MOTION TO COMPEL TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPs
Defendant Gold Star Foods, Inc. submits the following response to Plaintiff
Sigifredo Lupian’s Separate Statement In Support Of Its Motion t0 Compel Defendant t0 Provide
Further Responses to Plaintiff’ s Request for Production.
RESPONSE T0 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
A11 DOCUMENTS which evidence the dates and hours worked by COVERED
EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not
limited t0 time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal
OOOONON
period records, rest
period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form
containing responsive information.
11 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
12 Defendant objects t0 this Request on the following grounds: it is vague and ambiguous as
13 to the information sought, particularly as t0 the phrases
“in edited and un-edited format” it seeks
14 documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and are not
overbroad, unduly
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;
it is
15
not reasonably limited in time 0r scope; it seeks
16 burdensome, oppressive, and harassing; it is
documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work
product
17
calls for a legal conclusion; it assumes facts; t0 the extent it calls for documents
18 doctrine; it
Violation 0f those individuals’
19 containing private information about persons other than Plaintiff in
20 constitutional, statutory and/or common law rights 0f privacy.
21 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
22 M:
provide a
23 Defendant responds to this request by asserting boilerplate objections and fails to
24 substantive response. Such documents are necessary for Plaintiff to establish Defendant’s liability
violations asserted in this action. Because good cause exists to compel
25 for the wage and hour
26 production of the time records for all aggrieved employees and Defendant’s objections are without
27 merit, the Court should grant Plaintiff’ s motion to compel.
28
-2-
SMRH24823-9353-2156.1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HIS
MOTION T0 COMPEL To PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES T0 RFPs
Document Filed Date
September 23, 2021
Case Filing Date
December 04, 2019
Category
Other Employment Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations JASON W. KEARNAGHAN, Cal. Bar No. 207707 MELISSA M. SMITH, Cal. Bar No. 279467 ELYSSA M. STERNBERG, Cal. Bar No. 329481 D UI-PUJN 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor E SUEELE,‘ EOURT M Coum-Y 0; 9A" BERNARDINO Los Angeles, California 90071—1 422 DISTR|CT Telephone: 21 3.620. 1 780 SAN BERNAflDINO Facsimile: 213.620.1398 E mail jkeamaghan@sheppardmullin.com SEP 2 a 2021 melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com . BY “fl estemberg@sheppardmullin.com . 71.142"! mvl u-‘vr. thJHAMos’ DEF; i I ' Attorneys for Defendant ONOOOVON GOLD STAR FOODS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ‘ . z 2% 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT u../ ”fin? 12 SIGIFREDO LUPIAN, individually and 0n Case N0. CIVDSl936613 behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Assigned to: Hon. Donald Alvarez €331; 13 Department: $23 Plaintiff, 14 DEFENDANT GOLD STAR FOOD’S V. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 15 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT GOLD STAR FOODS, INC., a Delaware OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL TO 16 corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO inclusive, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 17 Defendant. [Filed concurrently with Opposition; and 18 Declarations ofElyssa Sternberg and Veronica Miramontes] 19 wing 20 Date: October 6, 202] Time: 9:00 a.m. 21 Dept; $23 22 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2019 Trial Date: None Set 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH34823-9353-2156-1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HIS MOTION TO COMPEL TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPs Defendant Gold Star Foods, Inc. submits the following response to Plaintiff Sigifredo Lupian’s Separate Statement In Support Of Its Motion t0 Compel Defendant t0 Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff’ s Request for Production. RESPONSE T0 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: A11 DOCUMENTS which evidence the dates and hours worked by COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not limited t0 time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal OOOONON period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form containing responsive information. 11 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 12 Defendant objects t0 this Request on the following grounds: it is vague and ambiguous as 13 to the information sought, particularly as t0 the phrases “in edited and un-edited format” it seeks 14 documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and are not overbroad, unduly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is 15 not reasonably limited in time 0r scope; it seeks 16 burdensome, oppressive, and harassing; it is documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product 17 calls for a legal conclusion; it assumes facts; t0 the extent it calls for documents 18 doctrine; it Violation 0f those individuals’ 19 containing private information about persons other than Plaintiff in 20 constitutional, statutory and/or common law rights 0f privacy. 21 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22 M: provide a 23 Defendant responds to this request by asserting boilerplate objections and fails to 24 substantive response. Such documents are necessary for Plaintiff to establish Defendant’s liability violations asserted in this action. Because good cause exists to compel 25 for the wage and hour 26 production of the time records for all aggrieved employees and Defendant’s objections are without 27 merit, the Court should grant Plaintiff’ s motion to compel. 28 -2- SMRH24823-9353-2156.1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HIS MOTION T0 COMPEL To PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES T0 RFPs